TL DR past your first denial. You made multiple claim of your scientific acumen yet you have yet to provide a testable and repeatable hypothesis for your nonsense claims about abiogenesis. You deny science in which there have been multiple noble prizes and have made zero effort to support your claims. I don't know how you can claim to be a scientists if you are unable to provide some research support your denials.
See:
Undefining life's biochemistry: implications for abiogenesis | National Institute of Medicine
In the mid-twentieth century, multiple Nobel Prizes rewarded discoveries of a seemingly universal set of molecules and interactions that collectively defined the chemical basis for life....
We may never know everything but you are denying the multiple scientific experimentation and hypothese, some of which resulted in Nobel Prizes, for what we do know. Denial is a serious condition. Perhaps the
Serinity Prayer could help you overcome your denial not because it is a Christian prayer but because it offers the common sense of what Jung referred to as higher education.
Go and learn some science, then Comment on science.
it is an utter disgrace you mislead people daily
On something you clearly know nothing about
Fir those who are interested in science ( unlike seemingly Frank.)
Science is messy. It does not have a single track.
Science starts with experience.
As Einstein noted.
First it studies experience.
Then comes noticing patterns
Then some are codified as experimental laws , which describe the patterns but do not account ( ie have an axiomatic model ) for them.
Many of the most well known laws are only that. Patterns : try boyles or ohms law Both of which are only accurate under restrictive conditions. They are not an axiomatic form. Nothibg that claims to be explanation
Are you claiming ohms law isnt science? It’s news to the rest of science!
In parallel with that is an axiomatic model.
Which models -some of it well,
-some of it badly,
- some of it not at all.
- some things contradict , other basic tenets of pthe model
And all shades in between
Theories live in the model not the world.
Just sometimes science starts with the model and extrapolates, so we have a model , but no experience of it.
Mostly we start with experience.
So in summary Using simple examples even Frank might understand,
For some things we have
1/ model and experience ( eg axiomatic model kinetic gas theory , experience boyles law)
2/ experience but no model, or that defies the model ( eg experience galaxy shape, but no model without a big error on mass)
3/ model but no experience ( we think we know how stars form, We have a model, but nobody witnessed it,
early stars are believed to emit little light, so astronomers look for things that MIGHT be indirect signs of star birth.
4/ conjecture with no experience or model. Only speculation.
It’s still valid science but way before hypothesis.
5/ one model that defies other precepts of the axiomatic model ( quantum effects defy many precepts of the normal model of existence so nobody can explain it, but the model is useful if You use it in the right places)
this conflict of models led to Hawkkings “ model dependent reality”
Science is messy, it is not your silly one track caricature.
most of it is trying to find patterns long before explanation.
I can tell you all sorts of behaviour that repeats in psychology , advertisers use it all the time but you will never explain it at neuron level. Not least because they are statistical nature and some subjects do the opposite!
Eucharistic miracles are 2/ evidence, no model
Which is way higher up the curve of proof than
Abiogenesus is 4/ which has no evidence or model
Many things cannot be repeated in a lab, and do not repeat frequently naturally. so. Study is hard
Your silly caricature of science comes from 8th grade not reality.
Real science is messy.
no hypotheses , or axiomatic model is ever proposed until a pattern is determined first .
You do not need a hypothesis to have an experimental law .
Some experience defies hypothesis In rational terms. Many quantum events.
So for the last time Stop misleading others Frank.
Stick to something you know. Pronounce on that instead.
so speaks someone who spent a decade modelling the physical world. Frank didn’t.
